The Houston gathering of the Indian Diaspora in the U.S. addressed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump was a resounding success in meeting its stated and implied objectives. Mr. Modi has drafted Indian Diaspora communities in several countries for advancing his strategic objectives. The Diaspora in the U.S. is of pre-eminent significance given its increasing political heft and the centrality of the U.S. in India’s strategic architecture. Mr. Trump’s appearance at the rally and his effusive support for India were a reflection of the community’s influence in U.S. politics. He named fighting “radical Islamic terrorism” as a key common interest of the two countries, spurring a standing ovation by the audience, including Mr. Modi. Mr. Trump also emphasised border security, a controversial topic in both democracies. Mr. Modi presented the ending of autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir to the cheering crowd as a significant achievement of this government. The rally galvanised the diaspora in support for Mr. Modi’s politics in India, and enticed Mr. Trump.
Modi goes to the US after a massive electoral victory. He is now recognized as a global leader with an unmatched democratic legitimacy. Trump’s decision to join him at Houston is an unprecedented gesture by a US president, even if one discounts the electoral calculation behind it. Even in that case, it amounts to a recognition of the political and economic clout of the Indian American community. The more the American political class recognizes this, the more of a strengthening effect it has on India-US relations. The presence of a large number of US Congressmen at the event points to this.
The Houston event comes after the Bharatiya Janata Party government’s momentous decision to make constitutional changes in Jammu and Kashmir and impose stringent restrictions on communications and movement in the valley. This has evoked sharp criticism in liberal political and media circles in the US and elsewhere, with a focus on human rights violations of the Kashmiris, even if it is broadly accepted that it is India’s internal matter. Bernie Sanders, some US Congressmen, and the state department have made critical statements on human rights grounds, calling on India to rapidly lift restrictions. Trump’s participation signals the limit of these pressures on India, as the message conveyed is that the broader relationship with India goes beyond Kashmir-related issues. This does not mean that Trump’s gesture entirely neutralizes pressures or that the Kashmir dossier will be treated entirely in our favour henceforth. What it means is that this issue does not have disproportionate importance within the overall framework of India-US ties.
Houston was about new forms of power. Modi’s immediate goal was to show the world that India stands with him; and India that the US stands with it. Pakistan was cut to size. But, beyond immediate politics, Houston was also an expression of a larger politics. What are its elements? Modi’s political alchemy has always consisted of the fact that he does two things simultaneously. He projects leadership and resolve. But in his liturgy he also artfully stands in as the representative of the nation; he constantly produces that identification. For instance, in this narrative, the abrogation of Article 370 does not become an act of his government, it becomes the will of the Indian people which he carries. One can criticise a government. But who would dare indict the Indian people for their choices? These rallies in the overseas context make this identification between him and the nation easier.
The currency of power in modern politics does not come through sociological or economic determinism. Modi has always understood that social life is constituted by an ability to make the vicarious seem vivid and real. This is what he can do with nationalism. His gestures like speaking in different languages, his reminders that his schemes are directed at those who empower him reinforce his power. We can contest the facts, point the stark variance between a tottering economy and his high blown rhetoric; we can be suspicious of his invocation of diversity.
Both leaders spoke extensively about the two economies and the way ahead. The prime minister laid out his vision of India’s development including enhanced coverage in rural sanitation, rural connectivity and banking. Affordability of data and the removal of excess regulations had contributed to greater ease of doing business which made India an attractive FDI destination. He also spoke about the steps necessary to achieve a $5 trillion economy — more investment, enhanced infrastructure and increased exports. All this is important for America to hear. India as an economy with a bright future is a very positive part of the India story.
Trump talked up the six million jobs created during his tenure, the low unemployment and inflation rates, and his tax cuts. He praised investment by Indian companies in the US and the tens of thousands of American jobs created. India has repeatedly made this point since the Trump administration, extremely transactional on trade and investment, took office. To hear it from the US president would be sweet music to Indian officials and corporates. Trump’s references to defence and security cooperation are worth noting. He recognised that India’s defence purchases now amount to $18 billion and more deals are in the pipeline. Again, this recognition is welcome. Our increasing diversification is exactly India’s argument when faced with potential sanctions for purchase of the S-400 system from Russia. Growing interoperability between the two defence forces, so essential for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, was also underlined by Trump with his reference to Tiger Triumph, the forthcoming first ever tri-services exercise.
Mr. Trump’s implied endorsement of Mr. Modi’s Kashmir policy was music to the ears of those in the audience, but the underlying principle of his America First nationalism that it has no role to play globally other than protecting its own interests could lead to outcomes not to India’s liking. The absence of four of the five Indian-American members of the U.S. Congress — all Democrats — at the gathering was also noteworthy. The transposition of India-Pakistan rivalry into a contest between the two diasporas is also unpleasant. Despite what Houston achieved for the two leaders, a line may have been crossed in the mixing of partisan national politics with international diplomacy.
The writer can be contacted at parthapratimmazumder1988@